Each word a person uses will paint a picture to display their beliefs. The tone of something can be completely different than the substance of what a person says.
As individual people in the United States, we each have the right to evaluate arguments based on our own perspective. If you believe Floridians on the LGBTQIA spectrum should be afforded that right for the sake of equal rights, you will vote for or against it regardless of if your former Governor changes the word choice he uses to describe the issue. However, if you evaluate arguments based on their tone and you believe that Floridians on the LBGTQIA spectrum should or should not have the right to be married based on the words Jeb Bush, or any other politician uses to explain this issue, then you will vote yes or no for reasons that have to do with tone and emotion. The entire point is that you vote.
Neither is necessarily bad, depending on who you ask. But you can’t say someone is guilty of “more rhetoric than policy” and then criticize them for saying that “respect for all people, regardless of their differences, and that begins with preventing discrimination, including when it comes to sexual orientation” has affected their decision making. Politicians should be free to change how they think, and the words they use. Regardless of if Jeb Bush has changed anything whatsoever, he is free to do that.
Jeb Bush’s definition of sodomy is what people disagree with. That is a matter of opinion, regardless of what “side” you are on. His right to use whatever words he wants while in public office unless he is impeached or found guilty of federal crimes, having been democratically elected by the people of Florida, is another matter. If you do not believe Jeb Bush was democratically elected, that is a separate matter entirely. But you cannot be upset when someone uses their right to speak freely and define what they believe, even if they do so poorly If you believe differently, that is one thing, and that is just how it is. But even elected officials have the right and ability to use the words they choose based on the reasons they choose. Surely Congress has made that clear in recent years, even if it should not.
In my opinion, the only thing that will address the conflict of same sex marriage in the United States is to hold a civil conversation in less confrontational way. To me, it appears that Jeb Bush is trying to do that more now than before. I don’t see why that is a problem so long as other people are willing to also address this matter in a non-confrontational way. Clearly this issue has a lot of major emotional connotations for most people. But common sense says that neither liberals, conservatives, independents, politicians, your hair dresser, or anyone who has significant understandings of current events or lack thereof should have the right to insult one another on the basis of the words they choose or their beliefs. If one group of people would prefer to be more upset than the other regardless of their identity (that too is an opinion), then clearly no conversation can be held.
On both sides of this issue, there are wounds. Will we accept having a conversation about what is the best choice for our country, or will we keep fighting? That is the stupid question.